2002 (7) TMI 309

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... tubes; that during the year 1999 they exported the goods against advance Licence No. 0021403, dated 5-2-99 and filed three shipping bills dated 26-3-99, 31-3-99 and 16-4-99 under DEEC Scheme; that the Appellants were permitted to import the raw material free of basic Customs duty but they were required to pay Additional Customs duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act; that while filing Shipping Bill for export the Appellants failed to take into consideration the fact that they are entitled to claim drawback of the additional Customs duty paid by them on the raw materials; that subsequent to the filing of the Shipping Bill they came across Public Notice No. 14/98, dated 1-9-98 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, New Del....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....back shipping bill was not filed for the reasons beyond the control of the Appellants. He relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar v. R.M.I. Cycles Ltd., 2001 (129) E.L.T 113 (T) wherein the unfavourable market condition was considered to be a situation beyond the control of exporter and DEEC shipping bill was allowed to be converted into the drawback shipping bill in exercise of the power conferred by provisio to Rule 12(1) of the Drawback Rules. 3. Countering the arguments Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned DR submitted that the fact of payment of Additional Customs duty on the raw materials imported by the Appellants was known to them; that the provisions of law allowing the drawback of the duty paid is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e fact of the availability of the drawback. No doubt the Appellants could have claimed the drawback at the time of filing of the shipping bill and the arguments put forth by the learned Advocate that claiming late the drawback should not debar them from their legitimate claim appears to be very convincing argument apparently but the law maker has used the phrase which is very strict for exercising the discretion for not complying with the requirement of Rule 12 of the Drawback Rules. The Commissioner can only exercise his power when the exporter could not claim drawback "for reasons beyond his control". No such reason has been brought on record by the Appellants. In the case of R.M.I. Cycles Ltd. reasons for exercising the discretion under ....